Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gurmeet Singh And Ors. on 19 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~R-1C
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:19th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.797/2005
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate.
Versus
GURMEET SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
26.07.2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an
amount of Rs.1,13,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company submits that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid
driving licence on the date of accident, i.e., 13.06.1999, despite, the learned
Tribunal has not granted recovery rights in favour of the appellant and
against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., driver and owner of the offending
vehicle respectively.
3. Learned counsel further submits that notice under Order XII Rule 8 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was served upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
i.e., the driver and owner respectively to produce the driving licence and
insurance policy of the offending vehicle, however, they failed to do so.
Thus, the respondent no. 2 was not holding valid driving licence on the date
of accident and this fact has been proved by R3W3, Sh. S.P. Singh from the
concerned authority.
4. On perusal of the trial court record, it is revealed that R3W3
S.P.Singh, Motor Vehicle Inspector, South Delhi Zonal Office, Sheikh Sarai,
New Delhi, had deposed that Car bearing No.DBA-7077, Engine
No.254830, Chassis No.130796, Maruti Car Model dated 12.07.1986 was
registered in the name of Ms. Sunia Mehra. Thereafter, on 24.03.1986, it
was transferred in the name of Shri Jeevan Lal Tandon and on 08.08.1988 in
favour of Jeet Lal Tandon. After that, it was further transferred on
29.04.2000 in favour of Suresh Kumar s/o Ved Prakash and on 20.03.2001,
in favour of Dhiky.
5. Since the witness R3W3 has said nothing about the driving licence,
therefore, his testimony has no relevance to this effect.
6. Moreover, this issue was not argued by the appellant before the
learned Tribunal, therefore, neither any discussion nor any opinion was
given by the learned Tribunal on this issue.
7. It is important to note that the Tribunal had framed the following
issues:-
"1. Whether the vehicle involved in the accident on 13/6/99
in which Gurmeet Singh petitioner suffered injuries was DAC
7077 and in case the vehicle happens to be the same what is
the effect of this discrepancy appearing in the registration no.
of the offending vehicle?
2. Whether petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and
negligent driving of car No.DAC 7077 or DBA 7077 on the
part of R 1 Survesh Kumar?
3. To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled
and from whom?
4. Relief."
8. Thereafter, the appellant/Insurance Company did not take any steps
before the learned Tribunal to prove whether driver of the offending vehicle
was holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident. Importantly,
no application for leading additional evidence has been filed by the appellant
before this Court in order to prove the wilful breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy.
9. In view of the facts noted above, I do not find any merit in the instant
appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly.
10. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the
balance compensation amount in favour of the respondent No.1/injured in
terms of the award dated 26.07.2005.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 19, 2014
Sb/jg
